Cited by 21Cystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment patterns in people with cystic fibrosis: have they changed since the introduction of ivacaftor?

Open access
Granger, Emily, Davies, Gwyneth, Keogh, Ruth H.·2022·Journal of Cystic Fibrosis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In late 2012, ivacaftor became available in the UK for people with cystic fibrosis (CF) aged 6 years and over with a G551D mutation. Long-term changes in treatment patterns have not previously been reported. We investigated long-term treatment patterns in people with CF with a G551D mutation who took ivacaftor and compared these with non-ivacaftor-treated cohorts using the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry. METHODS: Using 2007-2018 data we compared treatment patterns between four cohorts: 1: ivacaftor-treated; 2: ivacaftor era (2013-2018), ineligible genotype (no G551D mutation); 3: pre-ivacaftor era (2007-2012), eligible genotype (G551D mutation); 4: pre-ivacaftor era, ineligible genotype. Treatments included: inhaled antibiotics, dornase alfa, hypertonic saline, chronic oral antibiotics and supplementary feeding. RESULTS: Up to 2012 the percentages of people taking each treatment were similar between the two cohorts defined by genotype and tended to increase by year with a similar slope. Once ivacaftor was introduced, the use of other treatments tended to decrease or remain stable by year for the ivacaftor-treated cohort, whereas it remained stable or increased in the non-ivacaftor-treated cohort. This led to differences in treatment use between the two cohorts in the ivacaftor-era, which became more marked over time. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown a clear divergence in treatment patterns since the introduction of ivacaftor in a number of key treatments widely used in CF. Further research is needed to investigate whether the differences in treatment patterns are associated with changes in health outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcf.2021.08.014

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CFTR modulator treatments have changed the landscape of CF care, including the relationship that people with CF and their families may have with their condition and treatments, their patterns of adherence, as well as clinician views and prescribing practices.

    “These treatments have changed the landscape of CF care, including the relationship that people with CF (and their families) may have with their condition and treatments, their patterns of adherence, as well as clinician views and prescribing practices (Granger 2022).”

    From Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · cites this paper as Granger 2022

    The Abstract and Discussion (page not provided) report differences in recorded chronic-treatment patterns among people taking ivacaftor, supporting the point about prescribing practices. The Introduction raises a possible change in patients’ perception of treatment burden, but the paper does not establish changes in family relationships or clinician views; the Discussion explicitly says adherence levels are unknown. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Granger, E., Davies, G., & Keogh, R. H.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Granger, Emily
Venue
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
316-322
ISSN
1569-1993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3170503017
Cited by
21
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cystic Fibrosis (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MR/S017968/1, MR/T041285/1)
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Cystic Fibrosis Trust
  • NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre
  • UK Research and Innovation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Keywords
ivacaftor, G551D mutation, treatment patterns, inhaled antibiotics, dornase alfa, hypertonic saline, supplementary feeding, CFTR modulator therapy
MeSH terms
Aminophenols, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cystic Fibrosis, Humans, Mutation, Quinolones, Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review